The Boots theory of socio-economic unfairness

@redredred Perhaps he magically makes more money as he hasn't got money to waste on all the things you suggest he might.

@GeniUs I’ve held as many as two part-time jobs while working a full-time job. We are not magically entitled to leisure time if necessities are unfunded.

@redredred I'd suggest we are entitled to jobs whereby the minimum wage and a 40 hour week is enough to pay for accommodation, food, a means of travelling, and energy requirements. Not everybody wastes money.

I suggest that magical kingdom would have to be financed by something. Let me guess, the people who are just a bit richer than you.

Labor is worth only what someone else will willingly pay for it. Just because you work 40 hours at something doesn’t mean others have to guarantee you a living wage, it has to be WORTH a living wage.@GeniUs

@redredred This should not be seen as a magical kingdom but prover governance and I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

@GeniUs Who provides the extra money not earned by the person whose forty hours of labor don’t meet their basic economic needs? And why?

@redredred the costs are included in the cost of whatever they produce whether an object or a service and I know this is an insane idea the people taking the majority of the money out of the system owners/managers those sort of people take a little less. To most of them it wouldn't make any difference but to people who need that money it is life changing.

@GeniUs something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay. If your forty hours of work have only produced something others will only pay $300 for, that’s all you have coming. If you need more, that’s your problem and yours alone. I need not help.

@redredred He might have been, but that was not part of the original hypothesis and appears a rather defensive stance. If a job is of value to society, it must be priced correctly and not left to the state or charity to subsidise (if it is not, the job should be eliminated). If a working man has to pay twice as much for boots simply for want of disposable cash, this is a significant drag on productivity and the economy as a whole. Only the manufacturer of the inferior boots profits.

@redredred The problem is the 40 hours of work is generally worth well over $300 but when the owner takes $1k and the manager $500 and all the other people who need paying who aren't directly involved in the production of that money take their piece of the pie...y'know I don't think I need to explain this to you-it feels like you just want to make an excuse for financial greed.

@GeniUs Yes, and the taxpayer ends up subsidising the owner's 'profit' through tax write-offs, tax credits, social security payments, etc.

@GeniUs a factory or any work setting without prudent management will be out of business shortly and then the workers stop getting paid. You might think the owners and bosses don’t earn their share but that’s because you’ve never borne the responsibility of management. Sales, marketing, advertising, finance, procurement and logistics are not directly involved with production but those are necessary management skills that are a lot harder to staff than production workers.

@redredred You're making assumptions about my position in an organisation and you are incorrect. Once again I disagree with you that any of these "Sales, marketing, advertising, finance, procurement and logistics" are harder than the actual production of goods. Typically these jobs get a disproportionate share of money earned.
I suspect that you work in one of those professions surrounded by the others and I also suspect you have never been at the production end of business which is why you value the actions of the associates to production more highly than the actual job.

@GeniUs I’ve worked in many many factories, from making electrical components (at a common temperature of over 100°) , to home appliance to sea valves for submarines.I’ve also worked in each of the professions I mentioned.I have first hand experience of the difficulties of those roles that you do not.

Physical labor is difficult but I left it all behind me at 4:30 each day. Those other, office jobs often kept me engaged until 8:00 or 9:00 at night and, at times, all weekend long. Projects would takes months to complete and then there was the constant worry and concern about how well it would work. Sales quotas kept me awake many nights.

Add to that my responsibility for EVERYTHING my staff did and one can see there’s no comparison between the simpler production jobs and the greater responsibility of management.

@redredred Again you're making assumptions about me and painting yourself as a one man industry. One you don't know my experience and two you must be exaggerating your input to the jobs you have done and three I'm going to say that there's some dishonesty in how you portray what you've done. You seem to have functioned on the mind numbing end of production, there are hundreds of jobs which require a vast amount of different skills and you have balled them all as one. Take a step back stop blowing your own trumpet and appreciate that you don't know everything about a work force. (There are at least 3 aspects of production management I've worked in that you haven't mentioned).

@GeniUs I haven’t exaggerated a syllable. I’ve held enough jobs to speak with authority. You don’t want to accept my experience because it’s at variance with your pet notion tangentially related to Marx’s silly notion about workers vs bosses. You need to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. Production is necessary but not sufficient. It is management that makes the enterprise work. We are the central nervous system and the vital organs, production is the muscle.

@redredred Once again I call you out for being disingenuous and your last statement is evidence of that
I have accepted it, I don't agree it's justification for the conclusions you've drawn from it.
This isn't a workers v bosses, it's about appropriating proper remuneration for both sides and should be harmonious.
And the last 3 statements are an analogy that just doesn't work.

@GeniUs you’re wrong, I’m right. I won’t waste anymore time explaining the obvious to the oblivious.

@redredred The wealth class uses their money and power to buy representation and uses all that against the interests of the common worker. To keep their profits high and wages as low as possible.

Why should the working class then not do the same thing and protect their own interests? Why should be okay for one class, a class of benefit and priviledge mind you, yet wrong for the lower and less powerful class to do the same?